The Sunday morning news. [volume] (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1886-1891, 1887-02-27
SUNDAY. FEB. 81, 1887
FIGURES ABOUT WATER.

No reader of this paper need be deceived
by the comparative figures supplied by the
subsidized journal last Thursday evening.
on the water question. One has perfect
right to assume, after the Journals remark
able change of front, that the figures were
deceiwng the public in the interest Of a
private corporation whose special cham
pion it has become. 1t was guilty of false
hood, aud it knew it, when it stated that
the Bartlett water contract at $50 so per
million gallons would add only $40, 900 per
year to the cost of the present supply. Mr..
Bartlett admitted to the editor of this pa
per in an interview ten days ago, that the
city will have to spend s146,000 per year
more for 100000 gallons daily sup
ply from him, than it is paying for its pres
ent supply So there is very patent de-
ception in the figures with which the Jour
nal tried to hoodwink the people in its
Thursday evening issue. The Journal is
correct enough when it says that the $246-
645 81 left after deducting S318, 1920 needed
to pay the interest on the water debt from
the 1854 965 81 total water expenditure last
year represents fall the other items OF
cost" the city now has to bear in connec-
ton with the water supply; but it is more
than specious and Idisingenious-it practi-
cally lies when it intimates that the ex-
penditure of S246, 635 81 will be saved by
the acceptance of the Bartlett scheme.
That item includes not ouly the cost of
getting the water into the reservoirs; but
the cost of collecting the water rents, aud
the cost of extensions and distributions.
All that Mr.. Bartlett proposes to do for the
city for his $50. so per million gallons is to
put the water in the reservoir for its use. The
city will still have to maintain her bureau of
collection and will still be forced to extend
her pipes as her growth requires. These
two items consume about two-thirds of
the $246, Gas. 81 which represents the Jour
saars ''all other items of cost" The fol-
lowing table shows the difference between
the cost of the citys present supply, and
the cost of the Bartlett supply, on the
assumption that Bartlett will charge the
city only for her present consumption of
100000 gallons per day at his rate of
$50 so per million gallons:
AT PRESENT BAETLErr,
Cclls ction and interest 1864 les. e45
Getting water in reservoir $4,000 226, 4o2
acknowledgements. S 564,ss5 s7ll, Al
Difference. Observation-Disclosures 146.4s2
This is the nett additional outlay the
city would be forced to make, on the as
sumption that the daily consumption of
water, will not exceed 100000 gallons
per day. But the charge against the city
win never be for so small consumption.
The consumption now exceeds 1900, 900.
1t takes no account of the water used in
public buildings, and at the hydrants and
in charitable institutions against which no
charge is made.
In the hands of private corporation,
mstering every gallon Of water that passes
Into the reservoirs, and determined to ex-
act FROM the city the largest possible
measure of tribute, the daily consumption
would amount, within a month, to 25 mil
lion gallons; and the charge to the city for
the first years consumption would prota-
bly, reach over So a.C0O Nor. in the ma
tara of things coul.. tie supply, even with
an onest administration of the service,
remain stationary at 100000. The city
is growing. 1t is extending its mains in
all directors Fresh gallons are added
daily-almost hourly-to its water de-
man1s. The Journals figures of water
earnings themselves indicate an increase
Of from 13.5OO,0O0 gallons in 1881 to IL,
Geo 900 gallons last year; and there is no
doubt that the natural increase item would
be played by the Water Company on tie
immunity for all it is worth.